Re: formatsFloatRGBABitmapsAsARGB?
Re: formatsFloatRGBABitmapsAsARGB?
- Subject: Re: formatsFloatRGBABitmapsAsARGB?
- From: Darrin Cardani <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:55:47 -0800
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Stonewall Ballard wrote:
What does it mean for Motion 3 to return YES for [_hostCapabilities
formatsFloatRGBABitmapsAsARGB]? That makes no sense to me. I thought
this was supposed to return NO for hosts that labeled their float
bitmaps correctly, which Motion 3 apparently does.
This section from the SDK overview is ambiguous, since it doesn't
say how Motion corrected this problem:
Float Images pixelFormat Correction
Motion 2.1 ordered pixel components RGBA in floating-point images,
but the -pixelFormat method
returned ARGB. Motion 3 corrects this problem. You can determine
whether floating-point images
are mislabeled by querying [FxHostCapabilities
formatsFloatRGBABitmapsAsARGB].
It's further complicated by the fact that we didn't specify whether
the constant means input images or output images, and we were also
mislabeling output images, but forgot to fix them (if I recall
correctly). So you may get an input image labeled ARGB, and an output
image labeled RGBA, but really everything is ARGB (as of Motion 3). I
believe I've fixed the labeling of output images for a future version.
I assume that Motion 3 corrected this problem by changing the
component order to ARGB, since that's what I'm seeing in the
FxBitmaps, but I don't see any mislabeling. As in my previous
message, it seems very odd to me that Motion would switch from RGBA
to ARGB float pixels, especially since Quartz doesn't support float
ARGB.
Any explanations would be greatly appreciated.
I have to admit that some of this happened before I started working
here. But let me see if I can figure this out.
Looking through source control, it looks like in July '06, I added
code to convert 32-bit per channel images from RGBA to ARGB so they
would be consistent with 8-bit images. And, as I said above, the
change for output images labeling isn't yet shipping.
And as a reminder, if we aren't fixing some bug that's bugging you, it
may be because we don't know about it! Please file bugs when you find
them, and be as clear as possible in your bug descriptions.
As for the FxHostCapabilities, it sounds like it's just wrong. It's
possible that we added that method to FxHostCapabilities, then later
fixed whatever it was supposed to be telling you about, but forgot to
update the value returned by the FxHostCapabilities. I've filed a bug
to look into it.
Thanks,
Darrin
--
Darrin Cardani
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Pro-apps-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden